diff --git a/.cursor/rules/component-creation-ideals.mdc b/.cursor/rules/component-creation-ideals.mdc
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..661da418
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.cursor/rules/component-creation-ideals.mdc
@@ -0,0 +1,321 @@
+---
+alwaysApply: true
+version: "2.0.0"
+lastUpdated: "2025-08-15"
+priority: "critical"
+---
+# Component Creation Ideals β TimeSafari Architecture (Directive MDC, v2)
+
+> **Agent role**: Apply these rules when creating, refactoring, or reviewing Vue components (Vue 3 with **vue-facing-decorator**). Prioritize **self-contained** components that hydrate from and persist to **PlatformServiceMixin** settings. Minimize parentβchild coupling and prop drilling. Prefer **concision** where a separate component would add more API surface than value.
+
+## π Cross-References
+
+- **Migration Example**: See `src/components/NotificationSection.vue` for successful refactor implementation
+- **Parent Component**: See `src/views/AccountViewView.vue` for before/after comparison
+- **Settings Infrastructure**: See `src/utils/PlatformServiceMixin.ts` for available methods
+- **Related Rules**: See `.cursor/rules/` for other architectural guidelines
+
+## Golden Rules (Enforce)
+
+### Priority Levels
+- π΄ **CRITICAL**: Must be followed - breaking these creates architectural problems
+- π‘ **HIGH**: Strongly recommended - important for maintainability
+- π’ **MEDIUM**: Good practice - improves code quality
+
+1. **Self-Contained Components** π΄ **CRITICAL**
+ - Do **not** require parent props for internal state or behavior.
+ - Hydrate on `mounted()` via `this.$accountSettings()`; persist with `this.$saveSettings()`.
+ - Encapsulate business logic inside the component; avoid delegating core logic to the parent.
+ - Prefer **computed** getters for derived values; avoid stored duplicates of derived state.
+
+2. **Settings-First Architecture** π΄ **CRITICAL**
+ - Use `PlatformServiceMixin` for reading/writing settings. Do **not** introduce new state managers (Pinia, custom stores) unless the state is *truly global*.
+ - Prefer **fetch-on-mount** over passing values via props.
+
+3. **Single Responsibility** π‘ **HIGH**
+ - Each component owns **one clear purpose** (UI + related logic + settings persistence). Avoid splitting UI/logic across multiple components unless reusability clearly benefits.
+
+4. **Internal State Lifecycle** π‘ **HIGH**
+ - Pattern: **defaults β hydrate on mount β computed for derived β persist on change**.
+ - Handle hydration errors gracefully (keep safe defaults; surface actionable UI states as needed).
+
+5. **Minimal Props** π΄ **CRITICAL**
+ - Props are for **pure configuration** (labels, limits, feature flags). Do not pass data that can be loaded internally.
+ - **Never** pass props that mirror settings values (e.g., `isRegistered`, `notifying*`). Load those from settings.
+
+6. **Communication & Events** π‘ **HIGH**
+ - Children may emit events for *user interactions* (e.g., `submitted`, `closed`) but **not** to offload core logic to the parent.
+ - Do not emit events solely to persist settings; the child handles persistence.
+
+7. **Testing** π’ **MEDIUM**
+ - Unit tests mount components in isolation; mock `this.$accountSettings`/`this.$saveSettings`.
+ - Verify hydration on mount, persistence on mutation, and graceful failure on settings errors.
+
+---
+
+## Concision-First Decision Framework
+
+> **Goal:** Avoid unnecessary components when a concise script, composable, or helper suffices.
+
+**Prefer NOT making a component when:**
+- **One-off UI**: used in exactly one view, unlikely to repeat.
+- **Small scope**: ~β€100β150 LOC, β€3 reactive fields, β€2 handlers.
+- **Purely presentational** with trivial logic.
+- **Local invariants**: behavior depends entirely on the viewβs context.
+- **Abstraction cost > benefit**: would create an anemic component with props mirroring parent state.
+- **Better fit as code reuse**: logic works as a **composable/service/helper** without introducing new UI.
+
+**Concise alternatives:**
+- **Composable**: `useFeature()` encapsulates settings I/O and state.
+- **Service/Module**: plain TS helpers for formatting/validation.
+- **Directive**: tiny DOM behaviors that donβt need a lifecycle boundary.
+
+**When to make a component (even without reuse yet):**
+- **Isolation boundary**: async side effects, permission prompts, or recoverable error states.
+- **Stateful widget**: internal settings persistence, media controls, complex a11y.
+- **Slots/composition**: needs flexible children or layout.
+- **Different change rate**: sub-tree churns independently of the parent.
+- **Testability/ownership**: clear, ownable surface thatβs easier to unit-test in isolation.
+
+**Rule of Three (guardrail):**
+- 1st time: inline or composable.
+- 2nd time: consider shared abstraction.
+- 3rd time: extract a component.
+
+**PR language (use when choosing concision):**
+- βOne-off, ~80 LOC, no expected reuse. A component would add an API surface with no consumer. Keeping it local reduces cognitive load. If we see a second usage, promote to a composable; third usage, a component.β
+- βLogic lives in `useX()` to keep the view concise without prop plumbing; settings stay via `PlatformServiceMixin`.β
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns (Reject)
+
+- Props that duplicate internal/derivable state: `:is-registered`, `:notifying-*`, etc.
+- Child components that are **UI-only** while parents hold the business logic for that feature.
+- Introducing Pinia/custom stores for per-component state.
+- Emitting `update:*` events to push settings responsibilities to parents.
+- Scattering a feature across multiple micro-components without a clear reuse reason.
+- Using props for computed/derived values (e.g., `showAdvancedFeatures` as a prop).
+
+---
+
+## Quick Examples
+
+### β DO (Self-Contained, Settings-First)
+
+```vue
+
+
+```
+
+```ts
+// NotificationSection.vue (vue-facing-decorator + PlatformServiceMixin)
+import { Component, Vue } from "vue-facing-decorator";
+import { PlatformServiceMixin } from "@/utils/PlatformServiceMixin";
+
+@Component({
+ mixins: [PlatformServiceMixin],
+})
+export default class NotificationSection extends Vue {
+ private notifyingNewActivity: boolean = false;
+
+ async mounted(): Promise {
+ await this.hydrateFromSettings();
+ }
+
+ private async hydrateFromSettings(): Promise {
+ try {
+ const s = await this.$accountSettings();
+ this.notifyingNewActivity = !!s.notifyingNewActivityTime;
+ } catch (err) {
+ // Keep defaults; optionally surface a non-blocking UI notice
+ }
+ }
+
+ private async updateNotifying(state: boolean): Promise {
+ await this.$saveSettings({ notifyingNewActivityTime: state ? Date.now() : null });
+ this.notifyingNewActivity = state;
+ }
+}
+```
+
+### β DON'T (Prop-Driven Coupling)
+
+```vue
+
+
+```
+
+```ts
+// Child receives props (anti-pattern)
+export default class NotificationSection extends Vue {
+ isRegistered: boolean = false;
+ notifyingNewActivity: boolean = false;
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Component Structure Template (Drop-In)
+
+```ts
+/**
+ * ComponentName.vue β Purpose
+ * Owns: UI + logic + settings persistence (PlatformServiceMixin).
+ */
+import { Component, Vue } from "vue-facing-decorator";
+import { PlatformServiceMixin } from "@/utils/PlatformServiceMixin";
+import type { Router } from "vue-router";
+
+@Component({
+ components: {
+ // child components here
+ },
+ mixins: [PlatformServiceMixin], // Settings access
+})
+export default class ComponentName extends Vue {
+ // Internal state
+ private myState: boolean = false;
+ private myData: string = "";
+
+ // Derived
+ private get isEnabled(): boolean {
+ return this.myState && this.hasPermissions;
+ }
+
+ async mounted(): Promise {
+ await this.hydrateFromSettings();
+ }
+
+ private async hydrateFromSettings(): Promise {
+ try {
+ const s = await this.$accountSettings();
+ this.myState = !!s.mySetting;
+ this.myData = s.myData ?? "";
+ } catch (err) {
+ // keep defaults
+ }
+ }
+
+ private async updateState(v: boolean): Promise {
+ await this.$saveSettings({ mySetting: v });
+ this.myState = v;
+ }
+
+ async handleUserAction(): Promise {
+ await this.updateState(true);
+ }
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Migration Playbook (Props β Self-Contained)
+
+> **Agent, when you see a component receiving `@Prop()` values that mirror settings or internal state, apply this playbook.**
+
+1. **Detect Anti-Props**
+ - Flag props matching: `is*`, `has*`, `notifying*`, or mirroring settings keys.
+ - Search for parent usage of these props and events.
+
+2. **Inline State**
+ - Remove anti-props and `@Prop()` declarations.
+ - Add private fields for state inside the child.
+ - Add `mounted()` hydration and persistence helpers via `PlatformServiceMixin`.
+
+3. **Parent Simplification**
+ - Replace `` with ``.
+ - Delete now-unused local state, watchers, and computed values that existed only to feed the child.
+
+4. **Events**
+ - Keep only user-interaction events (e.g., `submitted`). Remove persistence/logic events that the child now owns.
+
+5. **Tests**
+ - Update unit tests to mount child in isolation; mock settings I/O.
+ - Verify: hydrate on mount, persist on change, safe fallback on error.
+
+---
+
+## When Exceptions Are Acceptable
+
+- **Truly Global State** across distant components β use Pinia/service *sparingly*.
+- **Reusable Form Inputs** β accept `value` prop and emit `input`/`update:modelValue`; keep validation/business logic internal.
+- **Configuration-Only Props** for labels, visual variants, or limits β not for state that can be fetched.
+
+---
+
+## Definition of Done (Checklist)
+
+- [ ] No props required for internal state or settings-backed values.
+- [ ] Uses `PlatformServiceMixin` for all settings I/O.
+- [ ] Hydrates on `mounted()`, persists on mutations.
+- [ ] Single-responsibility: UI + logic + persistence together.
+- [ ] Computed getters for derived state.
+- [ ] Unit tests mock settings and cover hydrate/persist/failure paths.
+- [ ] Parent components contain no leftover `notifying-*` or similar prop wiring.
+
+---
+
+## Testing Snippets
+
+```ts
+// Hydration on mount
+test("hydrates from settings on mount", async () => {
+ const wrap = mount(MyComponent);
+ await wrap.vm.$nextTick();
+ expect((wrap.vm as any).myState).toBe(true);
+});
+```
+
+```ts
+// Mock settings methods
+jest.spyOn(wrapper.vm as any, "$accountSettings").mockResolvedValue({ mySetting: true });
+jest.spyOn(wrapper.vm as any, "$saveSettings").mockResolvedValue(void 0);
+```
+
+```ts
+// Graceful failure
+test("handles settings load failure", async () => {
+ jest.spyOn(wrapper.vm as any, "$accountSettings").mockRejectedValue(new Error("DB Error"));
+ const wrap = mount(MyComponent);
+ await wrap.vm.$nextTick();
+ expect((wrap.vm as any).myState).toBe(false); // default
+});
+```
+
+---
+
+## Rationale (Short)
+
+- **Concision first where appropriate** β avoid unnecessary components and API surfaces.
+- **Reduced coupling** β portability and reuse when boundaries are justified.
+- **Maintainability** β changes localized to the owning component.
+- **Consistency** β one canonical path for settings-backed features.
+
+**Rule of thumb:** _Can this feature operate independently, and does a component materially improve isolation or testability?_ If not, keep it concise (inline or composable).
+
+---
+
+## π Version History
+
+### v2.0.0 (2025-08-15)
+- **Major Enhancement**: Added Concision-First Decision Framework
+- **New**: Rule of Three guardrail for component extraction
+- **New**: PR language guidance for code reviews
+- **Enhanced**: Agent role includes concision preference
+- **Refined**: Anti-patterns and examples updated
+
+### v1.0.0 (2025-08-15)
+- Initial creation based on successful NotificationSection refactor
+- Established core architectural principles for self-contained components
+- Added comprehensive migration playbook and testing guidelines
+- Included practical examples and anti-pattern detection
+
+### Future Enhancements
+- Additional migration patterns for complex components
+- Integration with automated refactoring tools
+- Performance benchmarking guidelines
+- Advanced testing strategies for complex state management
diff --git a/.cursor/rules/harbor_pilot_universal.mdc b/.cursor/rules/harbor_pilot_universal.mdc
index 8f3c1ef8..f2965394 100644
--- a/.cursor/rules/harbor_pilot_universal.mdc
+++ b/.cursor/rules/harbor_pilot_universal.mdc
@@ -202,3 +202,5 @@ Follow this exact order **after** the Base Contractβs **Objective β Result
**Notes for Implementers:**
- Respect Base *Do-Not* (no filler, no invented facts, no censorship).
- Prefer clarity over completeness when timeboxed; capture unknowns explicitly.
+- Apply historical comment management rules (see `.cursor/rules/historical_comment_management.mdc`)
+- Apply realistic time estimation rules (see `.cursor/rules/realistic_time_estimation.mdc`)
diff --git a/.cursor/rules/historical-comment-management.mdc b/.cursor/rules/historical-comment-management.mdc
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..4f78f38a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.cursor/rules/historical-comment-management.mdc
@@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
+---
+description: when comments are generated by the model
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+# Historical Comment Management β Harbor Pilot Directive
+
+> **Agent role**: When encountering historical comments about removed methods, deprecated patterns, or architectural changes, apply these guidelines to maintain code clarity and developer guidance.
+
+## π― Purpose
+
+Historical comments should either be **removed entirely** or **transformed into actionable guidance** for future developers. Avoid keeping comments that merely state what was removed without explaining why or what to do instead.
+
+## π Decision Framework
+
+### Remove Historical Comments When:
+- **Obsolete Information**: Comment describes functionality that no longer exists
+- **No Action Required**: Comment doesn't help future developers make decisions
+- **Outdated Context**: Comment refers to old patterns that are no longer relevant
+- **Self-Evident**: The current code clearly shows the current approach
+
+### Transform Historical Comments When:
+- **Architectural Context**: The change represents a significant pattern shift
+- **Migration Guidance**: Future developers might need to understand the evolution
+- **Decision Rationale**: The "why" behind the change is still relevant
+- **Alternative Approaches**: The comment can guide future implementation choices
+
+## π Transformation Patterns
+
+### 1. From Removal Notice to Migration Note
+```typescript
+// β REMOVE THIS
+// turnOffNotifyingFlags method removed - notification state is now managed by NotificationSection component
+
+// β TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: Notification state management has been migrated to NotificationSection component
+// which handles its own lifecycle and persistence via PlatformServiceMixin
+```
+
+### 2. From Deprecation Notice to Implementation Guide
+```typescript
+// β REMOVE THIS
+// This will be handled by the NewComponent now
+// No need to call oldMethod() as it's no longer needed
+
+// β TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: This functionality has been migrated to NewComponent
+// which provides better separation of concerns and testability
+```
+
+### 3. From Historical Note to Architectural Context
+```typescript
+// β REMOVE THIS
+// Old approach: used direct database calls
+// New approach: uses service layer
+
+// β TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: Database access has been abstracted through service layer
+// for better testability and platform independence
+```
+
+## π« Anti-Patterns to Remove
+
+- Comments that only state what was removed
+- Comments that don't explain the current approach
+- Comments that reference non-existent methods
+- Comments that are self-evident from the code
+- Comments that don't help future decision-making
+
+## β Best Practices
+
+### When Keeping Historical Context:
+1. **Explain the "Why"**: Why was the change made?
+2. **Describe the "What"**: What is the current approach?
+3. **Provide Context**: When might this information be useful?
+4. **Use Actionable Language**: Guide future decisions, not just document history
+
+### When Removing Historical Context:
+1. **Verify Obsoleteness**: Ensure the information is truly outdated
+2. **Check for Dependencies**: Ensure no other code references the old approach
+3. **Update Related Docs**: If removing from code, consider adding to documentation
+4. **Preserve in Git History**: The change is preserved in version control
+
+## π Implementation Checklist
+
+- [ ] Identify historical comments about removed/deprecated functionality
+- [ ] Determine if comment provides actionable guidance
+- [ ] Transform useful comments into migration notes or architectural context
+- [ ] Remove comments that are purely historical without guidance value
+- [ ] Ensure remaining comments explain current approach and rationale
+- [ ] Update related documentation if significant context is removed
+
+## π Examples
+
+### Good Historical Comment (Keep & Transform)
+```typescript
+// Note: Database access has been migrated from direct IndexedDB calls to PlatformServiceMixin
+// This provides better platform abstraction and consistent error handling across web/mobile/desktop
+// When adding new database operations, use this.$getContact(), this.$saveSettings(), etc.
+```
+
+### Bad Historical Comment (Remove)
+```typescript
+// Old method getContactFromDB() removed - now handled by PlatformServiceMixin
+// No need to call the old method anymore
+```
+
+## π― Integration with Harbor Pilot
+
+This rule works in conjunction with:
+- **Component Creation Ideals**: Maintains architectural consistency
+- **Migration Patterns**: Documents evolution of patterns
+- **Code Review Guidelines**: Ensures comments provide value
+
+## π Version History
+
+### v1.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- Initial creation based on notification system cleanup
+- Established decision framework for historical comment management
+- Added transformation patterns and anti-patterns
+- Integrated with existing Harbor Pilot architecture rules
+# Historical Comment Management β Harbor Pilot Directive
+
+> **Agent role**: When encountering historical comments about removed methods, deprecated patterns, or architectural changes, apply these guidelines to maintain code clarity and developer guidance.
+
+## π― Purpose
+
+Historical comments should either be **removed entirely** or **transformed into actionable guidance** for future developers. Avoid keeping comments that merely state what was removed without explaining why or what to do instead.
+
+## π Decision Framework
+
+### Remove Historical Comments When:
+- **Obsolete Information**: Comment describes functionality that no longer exists
+- **No Action Required**: Comment doesn't help future developers make decisions
+- **Outdated Context**: Comment refers to old patterns that are no longer relevant
+- **Self-Evident**: The current code clearly shows the current approach
+
+### Transform Historical Comments When:
+- **Architectural Context**: The change represents a significant pattern shift
+- **Migration Guidance**: Future developers might need to understand the evolution
+- **Decision Rationale**: The "why" behind the change is still relevant
+- **Alternative Approaches**: The comment can guide future implementation choices
+
+## π Transformation Patterns
+
+### 1. From Removal Notice to Migration Note
+```typescript
+// β REMOVE THIS
+// turnOffNotifyingFlags method removed - notification state is now managed by NotificationSection component
+
+// β TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: Notification state management has been migrated to NotificationSection component
+// which handles its own lifecycle and persistence via PlatformServiceMixin
+```
+
+### 2. From Deprecation Notice to Implementation Guide
+```typescript
+// β REMOVE THIS
+// This will be handled by the NewComponent now
+// No need to call oldMethod() as it's no longer needed
+
+// β TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: This functionality has been migrated to NewComponent
+// which provides better separation of concerns and testability
+```
+
+### 3. From Historical Note to Architectural Context
+```typescript
+// β REMOVE THIS
+// Old approach: used direct database calls
+// New approach: uses service layer
+
+// β TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: Database access has been abstracted through service layer
+// for better testability and platform independence
+```
+
+## π« Anti-Patterns to Remove
+
+- Comments that only state what was removed
+- Comments that don't explain the current approach
+- Comments that reference non-existent methods
+- Comments that are self-evident from the code
+- Comments that don't help future decision-making
+
+## β Best Practices
+
+### When Keeping Historical Context:
+1. **Explain the "Why"**: Why was the change made?
+2. **Describe the "What"**: What is the current approach?
+3. **Provide Context**: When might this information be useful?
+4. **Use Actionable Language**: Guide future decisions, not just document history
+
+### When Removing Historical Context:
+1. **Verify Obsoleteness**: Ensure the information is truly outdated
+2. **Check for Dependencies**: Ensure no other code references the old approach
+3. **Update Related Docs**: If removing from code, consider adding to documentation
+4. **Preserve in Git History**: The change is preserved in version control
+
+## π Implementation Checklist
+
+- [ ] Identify historical comments about removed/deprecated functionality
+- [ ] Determine if comment provides actionable guidance
+- [ ] Transform useful comments into migration notes or architectural context
+- [ ] Remove comments that are purely historical without guidance value
+- [ ] Ensure remaining comments explain current approach and rationale
+- [ ] Update related documentation if significant context is removed
+
+## π Examples
+
+### Good Historical Comment (Keep & Transform)
+```typescript
+// Note: Database access has been migrated from direct IndexedDB calls to PlatformServiceMixin
+// This provides better platform abstraction and consistent error handling across web/mobile/desktop
+// When adding new database operations, use this.$getContact(), this.$saveSettings(), etc.
+```
+
+### Bad Historical Comment (Remove)
+```typescript
+// Old method getContactFromDB() removed - now handled by PlatformServiceMixin
+// No need to call the old method anymore
+```
+
+## π― Integration with Harbor Pilot
+
+This rule works in conjunction with:
+- **Component Creation Ideals**: Maintains architectural consistency
+- **Migration Patterns**: Documents evolution of patterns
+- **Code Review Guidelines**: Ensures comments provide value
+
+## π Version History
+
+### v1.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- Initial creation based on notification system cleanup
+- Established decision framework for historical comment management
+- Added transformation patterns and anti-patterns
+- Integrated with existing Harbor Pilot architecture rules
diff --git a/.cursor/rules/realistic_time_estimation.mdc b/.cursor/rules/realistic_time_estimation.mdc
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..aa48577a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.cursor/rules/realistic_time_estimation.mdc
@@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
+---
+description: when generating text that has project task work estimates
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+# No Time Estimates β Harbor Pilot Directive
+
+> **Agent role**: **DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES**. Instead, use phases, milestones, and complexity levels. Time estimates are consistently wrong and create unrealistic expectations.
+
+## π― Purpose
+
+Development time estimates are consistently wrong and create unrealistic expectations. This rule ensures we focus on phases, milestones, and complexity rather than trying to predict specific timeframes.
+
+## π¨ Critical Rule
+
+**DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES**
+- **Never provide specific time estimates** - they are always wrong
+- **Use phases and milestones** instead of days/weeks
+- **Focus on complexity and dependencies** rather than time
+- **Set expectations based on progress, not deadlines**
+
+## π Planning Framework (Not Time Estimates)
+
+### **Complexity Categories**
+- **Simple**: Text changes, styling updates, minor bug fixes
+- **Medium**: New features, refactoring, component updates
+- **Complex**: Architecture changes, integrations, cross-platform work
+- **Unknown**: New technologies, APIs, or approaches
+
+### **Platform Complexity**
+- **Single platform**: Web-only or mobile-only changes
+- **Two platforms**: Web + mobile or web + desktop
+- **Three platforms**: Web + mobile + desktop
+- **Cross-platform consistency**: Ensuring behavior matches across all platforms
+
+### **Testing Complexity**
+- **Basic**: Unit tests for new functionality
+- **Comprehensive**: Integration tests, cross-platform testing
+- **User acceptance**: User testing, feedback integration
+
+## π Planning Process (No Time Estimates)
+
+### **Step 1: Break Down the Work**
+- Identify all subtasks and dependencies
+- Group related work into logical phases
+- Identify critical path and blockers
+
+### **Step 2: Define Phases and Milestones**
+- **Phase 1**: Foundation work (basic fixes, core functionality)
+- **Phase 2**: Enhancement work (new features, integrations)
+- **Phase 3**: Polish work (testing, user experience, edge cases)
+
+### **Step 3: Identify Dependencies**
+- **Technical dependencies**: What must be built first
+- **Platform dependencies**: What works on which platforms
+- **Testing dependencies**: What can be tested when
+
+### **Step 4: Set Progress Milestones**
+- **Milestone 1**: Basic functionality working
+- **Milestone 2**: All platforms supported
+- **Milestone 3**: Fully tested and polished
+
+## π Planning Checklist (No Time Estimates)
+
+- [ ] Work broken down into logical phases
+- [ ] Dependencies identified and mapped
+- [ ] Milestones defined with clear criteria
+- [ ] Complexity levels assigned to each phase
+- [ ] Platform requirements identified
+- [ ] Testing strategy planned
+- [ ] Risk factors identified
+- [ ] Success criteria defined
+
+## π― Example Planning (No Time Estimates)
+
+### **Example 1: Simple Feature**
+```
+Phase 1: Core implementation
+- Basic functionality
+- Single platform support
+- Unit tests
+
+Phase 2: Platform expansion
+- Multi-platform support
+- Integration tests
+
+Phase 3: Polish
+- User testing
+- Edge case handling
+```
+
+### **Example 2: Complex Cross-Platform Feature**
+```
+Phase 1: Foundation
+- Architecture design
+- Core service implementation
+- Basic web platform support
+
+Phase 2: Platform Integration
+- Mobile platform support
+- Desktop platform support
+- Cross-platform consistency
+
+Phase 3: Testing & Polish
+- Comprehensive testing
+- Error handling
+- User experience refinement
+```
+
+## π« Anti-Patterns to Avoid
+
+- **"This should take X days"** - Red flag for time estimation
+- **"Just a few hours"** - Ignores complexity and testing
+- **"Similar to X"** - Without considering differences
+- **"Quick fix"** - Nothing is ever quick in software
+- **"No testing needed"** - Testing always takes effort
+
+## β Best Practices
+
+### **When Planning:**
+1. **Break down everything** - no work is too small to plan
+2. **Consider all platforms** - web, mobile, desktop differences
+3. **Include testing strategy** - unit, integration, and user testing
+4. **Account for unknowns** - there are always surprises
+5. **Focus on dependencies** - what blocks what
+
+### **When Presenting Plans:**
+1. **Show the phases** - explain the logical progression
+2. **Highlight dependencies** - what could block progress
+3. **Define milestones** - clear success criteria
+4. **Identify risks** - what could go wrong
+5. **Suggest alternatives** - ways to reduce scope or complexity
+
+## π Continuous Improvement
+
+### **Track Progress**
+- Record planned vs. actual phases completed
+- Identify what took longer than expected
+- Learn from complexity misjudgments
+- Adjust planning process based on experience
+
+### **Learn from Experience**
+- **Underestimated complexity**: Increase complexity categories
+- **Missed dependencies**: Improve dependency mapping
+- **Platform surprises**: Better platform research upfront
+
+## π― Integration with Harbor Pilot
+
+This rule works in conjunction with:
+- **Project Planning**: Focuses on phases and milestones
+- **Resource Allocation**: Based on complexity, not time
+- **Risk Management**: Identifies blockers and dependencies
+- **Stakeholder Communication**: Sets progress-based expectations
+
+## π Version History
+
+### v2.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- **Major Change**: Completely removed time estimation approach
+- **New Focus**: Phases, milestones, and complexity-based planning
+- **Eliminated**: All time multipliers, estimates, and calculations
+- **Added**: Dependency mapping and progress milestone framework
+
+### v1.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- Initial creation based on user feedback about estimation accuracy
+- ~~Established realistic estimation multipliers and process~~
+- ~~Added comprehensive estimation checklist and examples~~
+- Integrated with Harbor Pilot planning and risk management
+
+---
+
+## π¨ Remember
+
+**DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES. Use phases, milestones, and complexity instead. Focus on progress, not deadlines.**
+
+## π¨ Remember
+
+**Your first estimate is wrong. Your second estimate is probably still wrong. Focus on progress, not deadlines.**
+# No Time Estimates β Harbor Pilot Directive
+
+> **Agent role**: **DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES**. Instead, use phases, milestones, and complexity levels. Time estimates are consistently wrong and create unrealistic expectations.
+
+## π― Purpose
+
+Development time estimates are consistently wrong and create unrealistic expectations. This rule ensures we focus on phases, milestones, and complexity rather than trying to predict specific timeframes.
+
+## π¨ Critical Rule
+
+**DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES**
+- **Never provide specific time estimates** - they are always wrong
+- **Use phases and milestones** instead of days/weeks
+- **Focus on complexity and dependencies** rather than time
+- **Set expectations based on progress, not deadlines**
+
+## π Planning Framework (Not Time Estimates)
+
+### **Complexity Categories**
+- **Simple**: Text changes, styling updates, minor bug fixes
+- **Medium**: New features, refactoring, component updates
+- **Complex**: Architecture changes, integrations, cross-platform work
+- **Unknown**: New technologies, APIs, or approaches
+
+### **Platform Complexity**
+- **Single platform**: Web-only or mobile-only changes
+- **Two platforms**: Web + mobile or web + desktop
+- **Three platforms**: Web + mobile + desktop
+- **Cross-platform consistency**: Ensuring behavior matches across all platforms
+
+### **Testing Complexity**
+- **Basic**: Unit tests for new functionality
+- **Comprehensive**: Integration tests, cross-platform testing
+- **User acceptance**: User testing, feedback integration
+
+## π Planning Process (No Time Estimates)
+
+### **Step 1: Break Down the Work**
+- Identify all subtasks and dependencies
+- Group related work into logical phases
+- Identify critical path and blockers
+
+### **Step 2: Define Phases and Milestones**
+- **Phase 1**: Foundation work (basic fixes, core functionality)
+- **Phase 2**: Enhancement work (new features, integrations)
+- **Phase 3**: Polish work (testing, user experience, edge cases)
+
+### **Step 3: Identify Dependencies**
+- **Technical dependencies**: What must be built first
+- **Platform dependencies**: What works on which platforms
+- **Testing dependencies**: What can be tested when
+
+### **Step 4: Set Progress Milestones**
+- **Milestone 1**: Basic functionality working
+- **Milestone 2**: All platforms supported
+- **Milestone 3**: Fully tested and polished
+
+## π Planning Checklist (No Time Estimates)
+
+- [ ] Work broken down into logical phases
+- [ ] Dependencies identified and mapped
+- [ ] Milestones defined with clear criteria
+- [ ] Complexity levels assigned to each phase
+- [ ] Platform requirements identified
+- [ ] Testing strategy planned
+- [ ] Risk factors identified
+- [ ] Success criteria defined
+
+## π― Example Planning (No Time Estimates)
+
+### **Example 1: Simple Feature**
+```
+Phase 1: Core implementation
+- Basic functionality
+- Single platform support
+- Unit tests
+
+Phase 2: Platform expansion
+- Multi-platform support
+- Integration tests
+
+Phase 3: Polish
+- User testing
+- Edge case handling
+```
+
+### **Example 2: Complex Cross-Platform Feature**
+```
+Phase 1: Foundation
+- Architecture design
+- Core service implementation
+- Basic web platform support
+
+Phase 2: Platform Integration
+- Mobile platform support
+- Desktop platform support
+- Cross-platform consistency
+
+Phase 3: Testing & Polish
+- Comprehensive testing
+- Error handling
+- User experience refinement
+```
+
+## π« Anti-Patterns to Avoid
+
+- **"This should take X days"** - Red flag for time estimation
+- **"Just a few hours"** - Ignores complexity and testing
+- **"Similar to X"** - Without considering differences
+- **"Quick fix"** - Nothing is ever quick in software
+- **"No testing needed"** - Testing always takes effort
+
+## β Best Practices
+
+### **When Planning:**
+1. **Break down everything** - no work is too small to plan
+2. **Consider all platforms** - web, mobile, desktop differences
+3. **Include testing strategy** - unit, integration, and user testing
+4. **Account for unknowns** - there are always surprises
+5. **Focus on dependencies** - what blocks what
+
+### **When Presenting Plans:**
+1. **Show the phases** - explain the logical progression
+2. **Highlight dependencies** - what could block progress
+3. **Define milestones** - clear success criteria
+4. **Identify risks** - what could go wrong
+5. **Suggest alternatives** - ways to reduce scope or complexity
+
+## π Continuous Improvement
+
+### **Track Progress**
+- Record planned vs. actual phases completed
+- Identify what took longer than expected
+- Learn from complexity misjudgments
+- Adjust planning process based on experience
+
+### **Learn from Experience**
+- **Underestimated complexity**: Increase complexity categories
+- **Missed dependencies**: Improve dependency mapping
+- **Platform surprises**: Better platform research upfront
+
+## π― Integration with Harbor Pilot
+
+This rule works in conjunction with:
+- **Project Planning**: Focuses on phases and milestones
+- **Resource Allocation**: Based on complexity, not time
+- **Risk Management**: Identifies blockers and dependencies
+- **Stakeholder Communication**: Sets progress-based expectations
+
+## π Version History
+
+### v2.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- **Major Change**: Completely removed time estimation approach
+- **New Focus**: Phases, milestones, and complexity-based planning
+- **Eliminated**: All time multipliers, estimates, and calculations
+- **Added**: Dependency mapping and progress milestone framework
+
+### v1.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- Initial creation based on user feedback about estimation accuracy
+- ~~Established realistic estimation multipliers and process~~
+- ~~Added comprehensive estimation checklist and examples~~
+- Integrated with Harbor Pilot planning and risk management
+
+---
+
+## π¨ Remember
+
+**DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES. Use phases, milestones, and complexity instead. Focus on progress, not deadlines.**
+
+## π¨ Remember
+
+**Your first estimate is wrong. Your second estimate is probably still wrong. Focus on progress, not deadlines.**
diff --git a/src/components/NotificationSection.vue b/src/components/NotificationSection.vue
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..08beb72a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/components/NotificationSection.vue
@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+
+
+